The Israelite leaders continue with the same reasoning they used in the previous episode. They had vowed to not give their daughters in marriage to the surviving Benjaminites (verse 21.1), so they must find wives for them in some other way.

Yet we cannot give them wives of our daughters is literally “And we, we cannot give them wives from our daughters.” This sentence continues the quote of the previous verse. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered Yet is followed by an emphatic pronoun for we, so it introduces a contrast here. Other possible ways to begin this verse are “But we can’t…” (Contemporary English Version), “But as for us, we cannot…,” and even “However, it is out of the question that we….” For give them wives of our daughters, see verse 1.12 and verse 21.1. This whole sentence may be rendered “But we cannot allow our daughters to marry them.”

For the people of Israel had sworn: The quote of the Israelite leaders has ended as the first person reference switches to third person. The narrator comes back to the former explanation. However, many versions seem to assume the Israelites’ quote continues here (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version, Revised English Bible). ver CEVver*, for example, says “We made a sacred promise not to do that, and if we break our promise, we will be under our own curse.” However, this change does not seem warranted. Though repetitive, this verse gives the precise content of the curse accompanying their oath.

The Hebrew particle ki rendered For introduces why the Israelites could not allow their daughters to marry the Benjaminites. The people of Israel is literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel” (see verse 1.1). For had sworn, see verse 21.1.

Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin: This is a direct quote of the Israelites’ actual curse. The passive verb Cursed be implies that Yahweh will curse the person who does such a thing, so in some languages we might say “May Yahweh curse [or, punish] the one who….” For the practice of cursing, see the comments on verse 5.23. He who gives correctly renders the Hebrew participle here, which may also be translated “anyone who gives” (New Revised Standard Version) or “the person who gives.” Gives a wife to may be expressed as “marries his daughter to” or “gives his daughter to marry.” The translation should reflect the marriage practices of the Israelites and not those of the target culture. In ancient Israel young women did not choose their own marriage partners.

Translation models for this verse are:

• However, for our part, we cannot possibly allow our daughters to marry them.” In effect, the people had sworn, “May Yahweh punish anyone who lets his daughter marry a Benjaminite.”

• But there is no way we can give our daughters to become wives of the Benjaminites.” Indeed, the people had made a solemn vow, saying, “Cursed is the person who gives his daughter in marriage to a Benjaminite.”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol: Unlike the previous verse, this verse does not begin with the Hebrew waw conjunction, showing a slight break in the narration. We could begin a new paragraph here and perhaps say “As for the tribe/people/clan of Zebulun….” Zebulun was Jacob’s tenth son, born to Leah (Gen 30.19-20). His descendants made up a small tribe that occupied the territory in the western hills north of the Jezreel Valley (verse 19.10-16). However, like the other Israelite tribes, the soldiers of Zebulun could not drive out the local population. Two towns, Kitron and Nahalol, are mentioned as having inhabitants who could not be driven out. The local Canaanite population continued to live in these towns, though eventually some of them became part of the forced labor working force. For did not drive out, see verse 1.19.

But the Canaanites dwelt among them: See comments on verse 1.29. Some see the waw conjunction rendered but as introducing a contrast. However, we might also say “And” or “So.” Another approach would be to omit the conjunction and simply say “The Canaanites continued to live among them.”

And became subject to forced labor is literally “and they were [or, became] to forced labor.” The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause seems to introduce additional information. We might say “and the people of Zebulun forced the Canaanites to work for them” or “and they were forced to work for the people of Zebulun.” NET Bible says “and were forced to do hard labor.” For forced labor, see verse 1.28.

Translation models for this verse are:

• As for the tribe of Zebulun, they did not drive out those living in Kitron and Nahalol. So the Canaanites continued to live among them, though eventually the tribe of Zebulun reduced them to forced labor.

• As well, the people of Zebulun were not able to remove the inhabitants of Kitron and Nahalol. So the Canaanites continued to live among them, but the people of Zebulun [eventually] subjected them to forced labor.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This second list of foreign peoples adds more names and emphasizes the fact that the Israelites lived among people who did not serve the LORD. This is part of the important background leading up to the judges’ episodes.

So the people of Israel dwelt among …: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, since it introduces a summary statement here. For the people of Israel, see verse 1.1. The Hebrew verb for dwelt means “inhabit” or “live” (see verse 1.9), though Good News Translation and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh emphasize the fact that the Israelites “settled” there. The preposition among seems crucial, since it was this cohabitation that provoked the LORD’s anger (see verse 1.29). Contemporary English Version changes the word order in this sentence to say that these other peoples “lived all around them [the Israelites],” perhaps trying to express the idea that the Israelites are surrounded.

For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1; the Hittites, verse 1.26; the Amorites, verse 1.34; the Perizzites, verse 1.4; the Hivites, verse 3.3; and the Jebusites, verse 1.21. There seems to be no importance to the order here, though it is worth noting that the Jebusites, the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, are listed last.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Deborah promises to go into battle with Barak, but she warns him that, because of his hesitation, Barak will not get the glory for the victory. Rather, a woman will bring about the downfall of Sisera. In most cultures around the world, this would be embarrassing or even humiliating. Since there is a shift in dialogue, several versions begin a new paragraph here, while it is also possible to begin a paragraph a little further down in the text.

And she said: These words introduce the reply of Deborah. In many languages the conjunction And will not be rendered. One possibility is “Deborah replied.”

I will surely go with you: In Hebrew this is an emphatic expression, which reads literally “Going I will go with you.” Many languages have similar focus constructions. The verb rendered go is central, appearing four times again in this verse. In many languages the emphasis may be conveyed by an adverb, such as “certainly” (New American Bible), “definitely,” or surely. Another approach is to render this whole clause as “Very well, I will go with you” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “Yes, I promise to go with you.” Unfortunately, the written text does not express the tone in Deborah’s voice. Many believe that Deborah is angry with Barak’s response and the emphatic construction seems to indicate this is the case. Contemporary English Version expresses this well with “All right, I’ll go!” Translators should find a natural but emphatic reply here.

Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory: The connector nevertheless translates a strong Hebrew word often rendered “except” or “only.” It is followed by the Hebrew particle ki, which at times introduces a reason (“for/because”). However, it could also indicate emphasis, which the Septuagint expresses by beginning this clause with “but know that…!” Following the Revised Standard Version reading, translators might use a strong contrastive conjunction, such as “but” or “however.” Contemporary English Version again tries to express the tone of the passage in words, saying “But I’m warning you that….”

The road on which you are going is an idiomatic expression in which road refers to a person’s behavior or conduct (see verse 2.17). You are going is another repetition of the verb for “go.” Here there is a participial phrase in Hebrew indicating something that is about to take place. It is possible that this road refers to the whole military mission (Revised English Bible “this venture”), but it is far more likely that it refers to Barak’s hesitancy in responding to the LORD’s command. For example, New Jerusalem Bible says “the way you are going about it.”

Revised Standard Version has a very different word order here than the one in Hebrew. The Hebrew reads “but it will not be for your honor, the way that you are going,” which underlines Barak’s fate. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh stays close to the Hebrew by translating “However, there will be no glory for you in the course you are taking.” The Hebrew word rendered glory is not the same one that is usually translated as such in the Old Testament. This less frequent word can mean “beauty” or “pride.” Here it can be rendered “honor,” “fame,” or in many languages, “a big name.” Good News Translation is freer, rendering this clause as “but you won’t get any credit for the victory.” This may be a good model to follow in some languages. Contemporary English Version says “But I’m warning you that … no one will honor you for winning the battle.” It now becomes obvious that Deborah is reproaching Barak for hesitating to obey the LORD’s command.

For the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman: In verse 4.7 the LORD seems to be promising the victory to Barak: “I will draw to you [singular]….” But here, that word of prophecy is modified, as Deborah tells Barak that the victory will belong rather to a woman. The mention of an unnamed woman heightens the suspense—hearers and readers may think that person will be Deborah herself. Though there is some debate as to why the LORD “changed his mind,” most believe Barak is being punished for his hesitancy to carry out the LORD’s plan.

The connector for (Hebrew ki) once again can be seen as introducing a reason or an emphatic statement. Good News Translation has “because,” but a word such as “Indeed” might also be possible. The phrase sell … into the hand of is unusual in this context. In verse 3.8 and verse 4.2 it refers to the LORD allowing other nations to dominate Israel. Here the situation is the opposite, since the LORD will give the victory to the Israelites. In the first “word of the LORD” from Deborah (verse 4.7), the verb “give” is used, but here it is the verb sell (see comments on verse 2.14 and verse 3.8). The word hand once again comes to the forefront, where it may be foreshadowing what is to come. Not only will Sisera be in the power of a woman—that very woman will quite literally use her hands to defeat this powerful man (verse 4.21). Possible translations for this clause are “The LORD will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman” and “The LORD will use a woman to kill Sisera.” Good News Translation manages to maintain the wordplay by saying “because the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.” It is implicit in the text that Barak will not participate in the killing, so it might be possible to translate “because the LORD will use a woman—not you!—to kill Sisera.” Contemporary English Version also provides a possible model: “the LORD is going to let a woman defeat Sisera.” However, if translators can somehow maintain the use of the word hand, this will keep the wordplay intact. With this final statement, the dialogue comes to an end.

Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh: This is a very significant sentence, since the Hebrew word for arose (qum) is often used when a judge is commissioned (see verse 2.16). This word is ambiguous here, since Deborah made a move to “get up” and go with Barak. However, if possible, it will be good to retain the verb arose to keep the link between Deborah and the other deliverers. Otherwise, the translator could say “got up,” “set off,” or “took off.”

In this sentence Deborah is prominent and Barak is secondary. The overt mention of Deborah and Barak could indicate this unit is ending or that a new paragraph is beginning (Contemporary English Version). However, many prefer to let the text flow and begin a new paragraph rather at verse 4.11, where new background information is provided.

As she promised, Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh on his way to prepare for battle. Kedesh is first mentioned in verse 4.6.

Some models for translating this verse are:

• “All right,” Deborah replied. “I will go with you, but the way you’re acting, you won’t get any fame that way. In fact, the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.”
So Deborah set off for Kedesh with Barak.

• Deborah said, “Certainly, I will go with you. But on the road you have chosen, you will get no glory, since the LORD will use a woman to kill Sisera.” So Deborah stood up and along with Barak, left for Kedesh.

If it is necessary to use indirect speech, the following is an example, but this rendering significantly diminishes the impact of the text:

• Deborah agreed to go with Barak but warned him that because of the way he was acting, he would not get any credit for the victory. Yahweh would give the honor of killing Sisera to a woman. Then she got up and left with Barak for Kedesh.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The response of three more Israelite tribes is described here, first Gilead, then Dan, then Asher. The Hebrew verb meaning “dwell” or “settle down” (shakan) occurs twice and forms an inclusio around this verse (rendered stayed and settling down). The poet is obviously using the same verb deliberately. There is also a close link to 5.16, since the Hebrew verb rendered sat still is the same one translated “tarry” there. The message of these repetitive verbs is clear. These tribes were not willing to budge to help their brothers.

Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan: Gilead is the name of a territory, east of the Jordan River, extending south in a narrow strip from near the Lake of Galilee to near the northern end of the Dead Sea. Jacob went toward this place when he fled from Laban, his father-in-law (Gen 31.21). The tribe of Gad settled in much of this territory. Gilead is a place name, so many translators will prefer to say “The people of Gilead” (Contemporary English Version), while some will replace this name with “The tribe of Gad” (Good News Translation). Stayed beyond the Jordan means these people stayed on the east side of the Jordan River. They refused to come across the river to assist in the battle. Translators may catch the tone of this phrase by saying “stayed put on the other side of the Jordan River” or “would not budge from the region beyond the Jordan River.” Beyond the Jordan could be an ambiguous phrase since its meaning depends on where the speaker is standing. To be clearer translators might say “on the east side of the Jordan River.” If this information would disrupt the poetry, then they might include it in a footnote. A map in the text will also help the reader to understand what the actual situation was.

And Dan, why did he abide with the ships?: With this question the taunts are addressed to another tribe, that of Dan (see comments on verse 1.34). And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. And Dan may be rendered “As for Dan,” “And as far as Dan is concerned,” or even “And what about the tribe of Dan?” Translators should always keep in mind, however, that this is a song, and not a narrative text.

Why did he abide with the ships? is a rhetorical question. This accusation against the tribe of Dan is expressed using the same question form as used against the tribe of Reuben in verse 5.16. However, this time the question is not directly addressed to the people concerned, but expressed in the third person. The singular pronoun he designates the group, so we might say “Why did the people of Dan remain on the coast?” However, if second person better conveys rebukes or criticisms, another possible model is “Dan, how could you just sit there next to your ships!”

The Hebrew verb rendered abide (gur) is different from the one translated stayed (shakan) in the previous line. This verb applies to living for a time as a stranger in a certain place. This is in keeping with what this book teaches about the Danites who made a major move from the Mediterranean coast in the south to the hill country in the far north (verse 1.34). New International Version says “linger,” while Revised English Bible has “tarry,” but in many languages it will be more natural to use “stay,” “remain,” or “find refuge.” In Hebrew the expression rendered with the ships does not have a preposition, but various versions try to render it in a natural way, saying the Danites remained “on their ships” (Contemporary English Version) or “by the ships” (Good News Translation, New International Version). This figure of speech certainly refers to a time when the Danites had not yet moved north, and were still living “on the coast.” Translators might use such expressions, but it is important to remember that in this poetic song these images are associated with each tribe: Reuben with his flocks of sheep and Dan with his ships. The reluctance of the Danites to help their brothers is just the beginning of their moral failure. Later in this book, they show themselves to be immoral and corrupt.

Asher sat still at the coast of the sea: Like Dan, the tribe of Asher does nothing to help their brothers. However, unlike Dan, Asher is introduced here without a conjunction. Translators should use natural forms in their language, for example, “And as for Asher….” The territory of Asher was much further north on the Mediterranean coast than the Danite territory (see comments on verse 1.31). Like the people of Reuben, Gad and Dan, the Asherites sat still where they were, refusing to respond to the call. The coast of the sea (that is, “the seashore”) was the dwelling place of this tribe. The word for sea is plural in Hebrew, and here refers to the Mediterranean Sea, a very large body of water that touches the coast of Palestine. Some languages do not have a word for sea, so they will have to say “big waters” or something similar. In many languages the word “coast” or “sea” alone is sufficient: “The tribe of Asher refused to leave their home by the coast” or “The Asherites remained at home by the sea.”

Settling down by his landings forms a chiasm with the preceding line: “he remained at the seacoast and on his landing places he stayed.” This structure draws attention to the Asherites’ obstinate behavior. Settling down renders the same Hebrew verb as stayed in the first line, describing the tribe of Gad, and if possible, the same verb can be used. In some languages it may be more effective to use a negative expression, such as “refused to move” or “would not budge.”

The meaning of the Hebrew noun rendered landings is uncertain. This word comes from a root meaning “burst” or “break through.” Contemporary English Version and Jerusalem Bible speak of “harbors,” and Good News Translation has “shore.” These renderings make sense, since they are parallel to coast of the sea in the previous line. New International Version‘s “coves” seems possible, but Revised English Bible‘s “creeks” does not seem correct in this context.

A possible model for the whole verse is:

• The tribe of Gad refused to budge, never crossing the river.
As for the tribe of Dan, they just sat there next to their ships!
The tribe of Asher too stayed down by the sea,
refusing to budge from their [lovely] seashore.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Like Abraham, Gideon prepares meat and bread for his guest (see Gen 18.1-8). The narrator takes great care in providing details of the preparation and presentation of this offering, which shows that it is not just a common meal.

So, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, serves as a good connector here. New Jerusalem Bible has “At this.” Some versions leave this conjunction untranslated (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). However, any appropriate connector can be used.

Gideon went into his house renders a very short Hebrew clause, literally “Gideon went.” These two words cover a whole series of actions since Gideon would first have to go to his flock, choose a goat, and then butcher it. The word rendered went sometimes means “entered,” which might suggest he went into his house, but it is more likely that “Gideon went off” (New American Bible) or “Gideon went away” (New Jerusalem Bible). Contemporary English Version says “Gideon went home,” implying that he left the wine press area and went back home. However, this rendering may not be correct, since it is likely that his flock was closer to where he was threshing his wheat.

And prepared a kid: Prepared renders the Hebrew verb that means simply “do” or “make.” Here it refers to the act of killing and cooking an animal, which may need to be made explicit in some languages. Additionally, some languages may require that the method of cooking be specified. Probably the meat was cut in pieces and boiled in a large cooking pot, which is mentioned later in the verse. Gideon was probably the agent giving directives, not necessarily the person carrying out each of these acts. Translators can make this clear by rendering this clause as “and he had his servants prepare….” A kid (literally “a kid of goats”) refers to “a young goat” (Good News Translation).

And unleavened cakes from an ephah of flour: Along with the goat meat, Gideon had bread made. There is an ellipsis in this clause, since the verb prepared is understood. Some languages will need to repeat this verb, while others will use a different verb for bread, such as “baked.” The Hebrew word rendered unleavened cakes (matsah) refers to a kind of flat bread that was made without yeast. Normally bread must rise before it can be cooked, so unleavened cakes refers to a kind of bread that can be made quickly. Gideon appears to have been in a hurry to get his offering ready, because he is afraid his guest might leave. This bread is yet another connection to an important episode in the history of the Israelites, when they made unleavened bread as they prepared to leave Egypt (Exo 13.3-10). Later this kind of bread became part of the standard offering to God (Lev 2.4, 11). Though the bread was probably round, the English word cakes may be misleading, since these did not resemble the sweet cakes known in many cultures today. Here unleavened cakes may be rendered “bread without any yeast” (Good News Translation), “thin bread” (Contemporary English Version), or “flat bread.” An ephah was the standard measure for measuring grains and similar articles. It was equivalent to about 22 liters or 0.6 bushel, so an ephah of flour would be a huge amount. Certainly the quantity is not crucial, so translators can use a general expression such as “a big sack of flour” (Contemporary English Version) or “a bushel of flour” (Good News Translation). The flour is certainly wheat flour, but this is not specified in the text. A general word for flour will be acceptable here. Contemporary English Version adds a new element, saying “Next, he opened a big sack of flour and made it into thin bread,” but it is better to stay close to the text if possible. Here the text does not say where the flour was stored.

The meat he put in a basket: Gideon puts the goat meat in a container to carry it to his guest. Some languages may need to insert a time clause here, for example, “After cooking the meat…” or “When he finished cooking the meat….” Contemporary English Version says “When the meat was done….” Like Hebrew, Revised Standard Version begins with the object the meat. It may be better to render this clause as “he had the meat put into a basket.” The Hebrew word for basket refers to a container made of woven materials, usually grass or reeds. In most cultures baskets are not the usual containers for meat. Perhaps this basket refers to a shallow tray-like container. A more common word can be used, as long as it does not refer to an item made with modern materials.

And the broth he put in a pot: Once again, the object of the verb (the broth) occurs in initial position in Hebrew. The broth refers to the liquid or soup in which the meat was cooked. We could also speak of the meat’s “sauce.” This sauce was put into a pot, which renders a Hebrew word referring to a deep container made of metal or earthenware. Translators should be careful to use a term that can refer to a container used in biblical times, for example, “clay cooking pot” (Contemporary English Version). In Hebrew a pot is literally “the pot,” so it probably refers to the pot where the meat was cooked.

And brought them to him under the oak and presented them: Gideon brings the things he has prepared to his guest. The pronoun them refers to the meat, the broth, and the bread. New Jerusalem Bible renders brought them as “brought it all,” which is a good model. To him under the oak refers to the LORD’s angel (or the LORD) who is still waiting for Gideon under the large tree (verse 6.11). Good News Translation makes this explicit by rendering the pronoun him as “the LORD’s angel.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh capitalizes this pronoun to make a direct reference to Yahweh, which while helping readers, will not be helpful for those hearing the text read aloud. For oak see the comments on verse 6.11. The mention of this tree, which many believe to be sacred, adds to the idea that the presentation of this food is indeed a religious act.

Presented translates a Hebrew verb meaning “bring near,” which is often used in the context of sacrifices, thus New International Version says “offered them to him.” Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible follow a different reading by saying “As he approached,” thinking Gideon presents himself to the LORD’s angel. The Septuagint has another reading, which is “and he [Gideon] worshiped.” However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the reading in RSV.

One possible model for this verse is:

• So Gideon went off to slaughter a young goat and prepare it. He also took a bushel of flour and made some flat bread. When it was done, he put the meat on a tray and put the broth in a pot. Then he brought this all under the large tree and presented it as an offering to the angel of the LORD.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And he said to them, “Look at me, and do likewise: Gideon gives his warriors instructions, though he does not immediately reveal what his plan is. Look at me, and do likewise is literally “From me you will see and thus you will do.” It is nighttime so one wonders what exactly the warriors will be able to see. As the next verse shows, they are to respond to the sound of the trumpet, so Look at me may be rendered “Pay close attention!” And do likewise asks the men to follow Gideon’s example. We can say “do as I do.” New International Version translates dynamically with “Follow my lead.”

When I come to the outskirts of the camp is literally “and behold I am going to the outskirts of the camp.” This clause begins with the Hebrew word hinneh (“behold”), which is not rendered in Revised Standard Version and most other English versions. Here hinneh seems to show the urgency of the situation but may also be a call to “listen carefully.” For the outskirts of the camp, see verse 7.11. The camp refers to the Midianite camp, not the Israelite one, so Contemporary English Version says “the enemy camp.” Possible models are “As soon as I get to the edge of the enemy camp” and “Listen! I am going to the edge of the Midianite camp. When I get there.”

Do as I do is literally “as I do, thus you do.” Revised English Bible renders the emphasis here well with “do exactly as I do.” This clause is similar to and do likewise. Some versions reduce the two similar clauses to one (so Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible), which is acceptable in some languages, but runs the danger of losing some of the impact and urgency expressed here.

Good News Translation reverses the order of the clauses in Gideon’s speech here by saying “When I get to the edge of the camp, watch me, and do what I do.” This model may be more natural in many languages.

What is not yet made clear in the instructions is that Gideon’s men are to surround the Midianite camp before they do what he does. The next verse clarifies this. This is probably why Contemporary English Version has chosen to combine this verse and the next one as follows: “Gideon said, ‘When we get to the enemy camp, spread out and surround it. Then wait for me to blow a signal on my trumpet. As soon as you hear it, blow your trumpets and shout….’ ” This is one way to render this passage, but the storyteller seems to purposely keep the audience in suspense concerning Gideon’s strategy.

Translation models for this verse are:

• He told them, “Pay attention, and do what I do. When I reach the edge of the enemy camp, do exactly as I do.

• Then Gideon said to his men, “Watch me. When I get to the edge of the Midianite camp, do what I do.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The detailed description of the spoils of war in the previous verse is the storyteller’s way of slowing down the story and building suspense. However, instead of a climax of victory, readers and listeners discover to their horror that Gideon, the chosen “savior” of Israel, is leading his people into idolatry.

And Gideon made an ephod of it is literally “And Gideon made it into an ephod.” The long description of the booty is stopped short by this short, direct clause. In Hebrew the clause begins with a waw conjunction, which many versions omit. Translators will have to determine what transition is needed here. NET Bible provides a good rendering by referring back to the previous text: “Gideon used all this to make an ephod.” Gideon is reintroduced to focus on him, as well as to put the blame on him. Made renders a general Hebrew verb meaning “do” or “fabricate.” Since metal is involved, the verb “forged” would also be appropriate. The Hebrew word for ephod poses a lot of problems for translators because it refers to several different items, depending on context. In the Pentateuch it is used to refer to a garment worn by Aaron and his successors, the high priests. This garment had a breastplate decorated with twelve precious stones, each representing one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Inside the pocket of this garment were the Urim and Thummim, objects used to determine God’s will (see, for example, Exo 25.7; verse 28.15; Lev 8.7). As a boy, Samuel wore a small linen ephod (verse 1 Sam 2.18). But obviously the ephod referred to here and later in the book of Judges (verse 17.5; verse 18.14-20) is not a garment, but rather some kind of idol. A few scholars think this ephod may refer to a cloth garment that was draped over an image or other object of worship. Translators have several options here. One possibility is to transliterate this word. However, if this solution is adopted, there will need to be some explanation, either in the glossary or in a footnote. Some versions use two different words for the Hebrew noun rendered ephod, one in the context of the priests, and another here. Good News Translation calls this ephod an “idol,” while Contemporary English Version speaks of a “statue.” Translations are almost always better understood than transliterations, so that is what we recommend here. We could say “Gideon took the gold from the earrings and made [or, forged] an idol.” However, it is unlikely that Gideon did this work himself, so another possible model is “Gideon had an idol made.”

And put it in his city, in Ophrah: The Hebrew verb rendered put is not the common verb often seen in this book. It is a more emphatic verb, which may be rendered “set up” or “installed.” Obviously this statue or idol is set up to be worshiped. In his city, in Ophrah refers to the hometown of Gideon. With the mention of Ophrah, the inclusio begun in verse 6.11 comes to a close here. With this detail the narrator brings strong irony to the text, since in verse 6.25-32 Gideon destroyed the false idols in Ophrah. This story comes full circle.

And all Israel played the harlot after it there: All Israel is not a common expression in this book. It is probably an exaggeration and communicates some of the narrator’s distress at seeing what happened. Contemporary English Version modifies this expression by saying “the Israelites,” but Good News Translation stays closer to the text with “All the Israelites.” It is probably better to tell the story as the narrator does, rather than to modify the text. In the Old Testament played the harlot is a common figurative expression for being unfaithful to God (see comments on verse 2.17). Played the harlot after it means the Israelites were unfaithful to God, here pledging their allegiance to the idol rather than to Yahweh. It is good to preserve this figure of speech if possible. New Revised Standard Version and New Jerusalem Bible say the Israelites “prostituted themselves to it” (similarly New International Version). However, if such language is not understood, translators can follow Good News Translation, which has “abandoned God and went … to worship the idol.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “went astray after it” seems rather weak in light of the circumstances and the strong language used here. A better model is “abandoned Yahweh and worshiped the idol/statue instead.”

And it became a snare to Gideon and to his family: Here the narrator not only recounts an incident, but assesses what is happening, again using figurative language. The pronoun it refers to the idol Gideon made. The idol was like a snare or trap that lured Gideon and his family away from their worship of God. For this imagery see the comments on verse 2.3. To his family is literally “for his house,” which refers not just to the nuclear family, but to all the relatives making up the extended family. Contemporary English Version says “and even Gideon and his family were trapped into worshiping the statue.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Gideon used the gold earrings to make a statue that he set up in his hometown, Ophrah. All the people of Israel were unfaithful to Yahweh and began to worship the statue there. This statue was a trap, causing the heart of Gideon and his family to turn away from Yahweh.

• Gideon took the gold from the earrings and made an idol for the Israelites to worship. He set it up in his hometown, Ophrah, and everybody went there to worship it. This idol caused Gideon and his whole family to abandon their worship of Yahweh.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .